Barnhart v. Ingalls, 1170253

Citation275 So.3d 1112
Decision Date21 November 2018
Docket Number1170253
Parties Deborah BARNHART, Brooke Balch, and Vickie Henderson, individually and in their official capacities as officers of the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission v. Janice INGALLS, Milton Parker, and Kamara Bowling Davis
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

William R. Lunsford, Matthew B. Reeves, and Melissa K. Marlar of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Huntsville; and Matthew W. Stiles of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for appellants.

R. Brent Irby and Charles A. McCallum III of McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, Vestavia Hills; and Teresa Mastando and Eric J. Artrip, LLC, Huntsville, for appellees.

STUART, Chief Justice.

Deborah Barnhart, Brooke Balch, and Vickie Henderson, current and former officers of the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission ("the Commission") (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Commission officers"), petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Madison Circuit Court to dismiss the claims asserted against them in this class action or, in the alternative, to vacate its order certifying those claims for class-action treatment. We treat the petition as an appeal, and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.

The Commission was created as a State agency in 1965 by the Alabama Legislature to provide for and manage "facilities to house and display such visual exhibits of space exploration and hardware used therefor as may be made available by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration." § 41-9-430, Ala. Code 1975. In accordance with that purpose, the Commission opened the U.S. Space & Rocket Center ("the Rocket Center") in March 1970 and, since that time, has continued to operate the popular museum and learning center in Huntsville. At the time this action was initiated, the Commission employed approximately 120 individuals at the Rocket Center.

The Commission is required by law to maintain records of its revenue and expenditures and to periodically make those records available for audit by the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts ("DEPA"). § 41-9-437, Ala. Code 1975. During the summer of 2013, DEPA conducted a financial and compliance audit of the Commission's records for the period spanning October 2007 through September 2012. In October 2013, DEPA representatives met with certain Commission representatives –– including Barnhart, the chief executive officer; and Balch, the vice president of finance –– to discuss the findings of the audit. Among those findings were the conclusions that the Commission had not complied with Alabama law (1) in its payment of annual longevity bonuses to Commission employees and (2) in the manner it compensated Commission employees for working on certain State holidays. With regard to the Commission's payment of annual longevity bonuses, DEPA cited § 36-6-11(a), Ala. Code 1975, which provides:

"Each person employed by the State of Alabama, and all legislative personnel, officers, or employees, including but not limited to Legislative Reference Service personnel, whether subject to the state Merit System or not, shall be entitled to and receive in a lump sum the first payday of December each year the sum of three hundred dollars ($300) per annum after such employee has served for a total period of five years and shall receive the payment until the tenth year of total service, at which time the payment shall be made in a like manner and at a like time but in the amount of four hundred dollars ($400) per annum until the fifteenth year of total service, at which time the payment shall be made in a like manner and at a like time but in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per annum until the twentieth year of total service, at which time the payment shall be made in a like manner and at a like time but in the amount of six hundred dollars ($600) per annum until the twenty-fifth year of total service, at which time the payment shall be made in a like manner and at a like time, but in the amount of seven hundred dollars ($700) as long as the employee remains in service. Beginning October 1, 2006, and continuing each fiscal year thereafter in which an employee does not receive a cost-of-living increase in compensation, each per annum amount provided in this subsection shall be increased by one hundred dollars ($100) per year to a maximum amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for 25 years of total service as long as the employee remains in service."

DEPA concluded that the Commission had not been complying with § 36-6-11(a) inasmuch as it had not increased the annual longevity bonuses paid to Commission employees in those years in which the Commission employees did not receive cost-of-living raises, and it accordingly recommended that the Commission "re-compute longevity pay for each employee for all years in which they were qualified to receive longevity pay for reason of not having received a cost of living pay increase and [the Commission] should pay the employees the total amount of all underpayments due them."

With regard to the compensation of Commission employees who worked on State holidays, DEPA noted that § 1-3-8, Ala. Code 1975, authorizes 13 State holidays: (1) New Year's Day; (2) Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday/Robert E. Lee's birthday; (3) Mardi Gras;1 (4) George Washington's birthday/Thomas Jefferson's birthday; (5) Confederate Memorial Day; (6) National Memorial Day; (7) Jefferson Davis's birthday; (8) Fourth of July; (9) Labor Day; (10) Columbus Day/Fraternal Day/American Indian Heritage Day; (11) Veterans' Day; (12) Thanksgiving; and (13) Christmas Day. Subsection 1-3-8(e) further provides that "[a]ll state holidays shall be observed by the closing of all state offices" and that "[a]ny state employee working on a state holiday shall receive a day of compensatory leave or paid compensation in lieu of the holiday." In practice, however, the Commission observed only seven of the State holidays,2 and DEPA accordingly deemed the Commission to be out of compliance with § 1-3-8. To become compliant, DEPA recommended that the Commission observe all the holidays enumerated in § 1-3-8 and that it begin providing compensatory leave or appropriate paid compensation to employees working on those holidays.

Upon being informed of these findings, representatives of the Commission notified DEPA that they disagreed with the finding that the Commission had not complied with § 36-6-11(a) and § 1-3-8 (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the benefits statutes") because, they argued, the legislation pursuant to which the Commission was created, § 41-9-430 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, removed the Commission from the purview of certain state employment laws, including the benefit statutes. In January 2014, DEPA released the Commission audit to the public, at which time Commission employees became aware of the findings regarding their benefits. Commission representatives, including Barnhart and Henderson, the vice president of human resources, thereafter held a meeting open to all Commission employees at which they stated that they had reviewed the audit and that they disagreed with its findings but that any changes that were required would be made.

No changes were made, however, and on October 16, 2015, several former Commission employees sued the Commission and the Commission officers, alleging that the plaintiffs, as well as other past and present Commission employees, had not received all the compensation to which they were entitled during their tenures as Commission employees. Another lawsuit based on the same general facts was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; that lawsuit, however, was eventually dismissed. See Ingalls v. U.S. Space & Rocket Ctr., 679 F. App'x 935, 937 (11th Cir. 2017) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter ) (affirming the federal district court's dismissal of equal-protection and due-process claims filed against the Commission officers because "the former employees failed to allege a violation of clearly established law" and the former employees "will receive adequate process in their parallel Alabama state court litigation").

The instant action was initially filed in the Montgomery Circuit Court but was subsequently transferred to the Madison Circuit Court. As amended on March 10, 2017, the complaint filed by the former employees of the Commission (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the named plaintiffs") alleged that they had not been paid the amount of longevity bonuses to which they were entitled when they were Commission employees and that they had not been properly compensated for working on State holidays that were not observed at the Rocket Center. The named plaintiffs accordingly asserted claims against the Commission officers in their official capacities seeking (1) a judgment declaring that the Commission's existing policies and compensation plan did not comply with the plain terms of the benefits statutes ("the declaratory-relief claim"); (2) an injunction requiring the Commission officers to henceforth comply with those statutes ("the prospective-relief claim"); and (3) an award of all moneys previously earned but not paid because of the failure to comply with the benefits statutes ("the retrospective-relief claim"). The named plaintiffs also asserted negligence/wantonness and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the Commission officers in their individual capacities ("the individual-capacities claims").3

As directed by the trial court, the parties engaged in discovery related solely to the issue of class certification, and, on June 23, 2017, the named plaintiffs formally moved for class certification of their claims. The Commission officers opposed that motion, arguing that class certification was inappropriate, while also moving the trial court to enter a summary judgment in their favor on immunity, standing, and statute-of-limitations grounds. The trial court initially scheduled a hearing on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Ex parte Pinkard
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 27, 2022
    ...by § 14. Mitchell v. Davis, 598 So.2d 801, 806 (Ala. 1992). Second, this Court recently held for the first time in Barnhart v. Ingalls, 275 So.3d 1112 (Ala. 2018), that claims against a State officer alleging that the breached "duties … that … existed solely because of [the officer's] offic......
  • Reagan v. Ala. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 14, 2021
    ..." ’ " Anthony v. Datcher, [Ms. 1190164, Sept. 4, 2020] ––– So. 3d ––––, ––––, 2020 WL 5268468 (Ala. 2020) (quoting Barnhart v. Ingalls, 275 So. 3d 1112, 1122 (Ala. 2018), quoting in turn Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., 990 So. 2d 831, 839 (Ala. 2008) ) (emphasis added). Req......
  • Ohio Valley Conference v. Jones
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 19, 2023
    ...act that a court may order them to have JSU pay. That same type of argument was presented by the defendants in Barnhart v. Ingalls, 275 So.3d 1112 (Ala. 2018), with respect to the official-capacity claims asserted them.[6] "In Barnhart, the Alabama Supreme Court considered what it construed......
  • Southall v. Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (Ex parteWilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.), 1170621
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 21, 2018
    ...of their duties as officials; no duties they might have owed Southall individually or personally are implicated. See Barnhart v. Ingalls, 275 So.3d 1112 (Ala. 2018). Thus, the claims against them are, in effect, claims against the State, and any so-called exceptions to § 14 do not apply to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT